DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the vent hole" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites “the holder” in line 1. It is unclear which holder is being referenced since multiple holders are defined in the preceding claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10, 12-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 206541867 in view of CN 206657827.
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, CN ‘867 is directed to an energy storage apparatus (battery) comprising an end cover assembly (abstract, Figures). The battery comprises a housing (7, Fig. 3) and the end cover assembly comprises an insulation holder (5, Fig. 1; or 51, Fig. 2). The insulation holder comprises a main body plate, a first wall plate and a second wall plate (shown below in Fig. 2, main body plate is “perforated” plates extending longitudinally in combination with the central horizontal ribbed plate; first and second wall plates extend vertically in the center):
PNG
media_image1.png
122
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Partial view of Fig. 2 of CN ‘867
The main body plate has a first surface and second surface, the first and second wall plates extending away from the main body plate in a thickness direction of the main body plate. The main body plate and first and second wall plates jointly define a receiving space:
PNG
media_image2.png
63
117
media_image2.png
Greyscale
CN ‘867 further teaches that a member (“explosion proof valve holder") is received in the receiving space (unlabeled, element below element “52” as shown below):
PNG
media_image3.png
100
126
media_image3.png
Greyscale
CN ‘867 further teaches an explosion proof valve (4) in the top cover sheet (1) (Fig. 1).
However, CN ‘867 does not expressly teach that the main body plate, first wall plate and second wall plate are all spaced from the valve holder to form a first airflow channel (claims 1, 19 and 20).
CN ‘827 is directed to an insulation support for a battery end cap assembly having increased ventilation. The end cap assembly comprises an explosion proof valve on the top cap piece (abstract). The support is provided in two halves that mirror each other (Figure 1, reproduced below). The support comprises a main body plate (12, 13) and first and second wall plates (14), similar to CN ‘867. Notches (15) are located in the first and second wall plates, as well as an airflow channel (second airflow channel) formed by the space between the halves of the main body plates in the center.
PNG
media_image4.png
498
790
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of CN ‘827
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the artisan would be motivated, if it is not already present in CN ‘867, to employ a (first) airflow channel between the valve holder and the bottom and side walls of the receiving space as claimed. The motivation to do this is found in JP ‘827: “the air current ability that flows between explosion-proof valve bottom space and other spaces has been strengthened greatly” (abstract), and in other places in the reference (e.g., [0031]), it is disclosed that the explosion proof valve is more sensitive because of the increased ventilation. Regarding CN ‘867, the skilled artisan would be motivated by these teachings to keep an airflow space between the valve holder and the walls of the receiving space so as to increase airflow around the explosion proof valve (4) relative to an embodiment where the valve holder might be more “sealed” to the receiving space walls. Accordingly, the claimed first airflow channel would be rendered obvious.
Further regarding independent claim 20, the claim recites an electricity-consumption device comprising the battery, and such limitation is obvious on the basis that an electricity consuming device is a well-known application of a battery.
Regarding claim 2, the distance (“S1”) between the wall plates and the valve holder is a parameter that can be routinely optimized by the skilled artisan in light of the guidance above. As such, the claim is rendered obvious.
Regarding claims 3-5, CN ‘867 discloses the claimed curved plate configurations in the first and second wall plates as shown:
PNG
media_image5.png
40
50
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Each wall plate comprises two “curved plates,” each curved plate having an approximately 90 degree bend and being L shaped.
Regarding claim 6, the insulation holder of CN ‘867 comprises a lateral plate (51, Fig. 2) connected to the main body plate at a right angle. Although the reference does not expressly teach that an edge of the main body plate facing away from the lateral plate is chamfered, such change in shape is not considered to distinguish over the reference. Generally a change in shape is not considered to be patentably significant unless a new or unexpected result is shown (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 7, the insulation holder of CN ‘867 comprises a protrusion in the shape of a trapezoid that extends from an edge of the lateral plate in the width direction of the main body plate as follows:
PNG
media_image6.png
24
47
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, the end of the first wall plate appears to be spaced from the protrusion in the thickness direction of the main body plate. Accordingly, the limitation is met.
Regarding claim 9, the main body plate of CN ‘867 comprises a vent plate defining a vent hole as follows:
PNG
media_image7.png
46
117
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(the vent plate is the ribbed central plate of the main body plate, and the vent hole is the gap in the center of two vent plates formed by the modification of CN ‘827 of leaving the two plates spaced apart). The vent plate forms the bottom portion of the receiving space and would be spaced from the explosion-proof valve holder.
Regarding claim 10, the distance S2 between the valve holder and the main body plate would be subject to routine optimization for the reasons set forth above, and therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 12, each vent plate of CN ‘867 comprises a first vent plate and a second vent plate as follows: in the width direction of the main body plate, the first vent plate is the portion coextensive with the support plate, and the second vent plate is the portion that protrudes in the width direction from the support plate. The first and second vent plates are in “butt joint” in the width direction as claimed.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites a chamfer between the vent plate and the first wall plate. Such a modification would be obvious for the reasons stated above (i.e., change in shape).
Regarding claim 14, the first and second wall plates in CN ‘867 are in mirror symmetry.
Regarding claim 16, in CN ‘867 a fastener protrudes from the lateral plate and is received in the receiving space as follows:
PNG
media_image8.png
36
85
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Although it is not specifically disclosed that the fastener is engaged with the valve holder, the valve holder appears to have open sides that are in the correct position to engage with the fasteners.
Regarding claim 17, CN ‘867 discloses an insulation member comprising a side plate defining a third notch as follows:
PNG
media_image9.png
46
62
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The side plate faces the valve holder and comprises the notch.
Regarding claim 18, the insulation holder comprises a first holder (51) and a second holder (51), the first and second holders being connected to opposite sides of the insulation member as follows:
PNG
media_image10.png
214
256
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The first and second holders are in mirror symmetry. As noted above, upon making the modification of CN ‘827, a second airflow channel (vent hole) is present between the holders. Furthermore, the second airflow channel would be in communication with the third notch, as CN ‘827 indicates the second airflow channel extends all the way up the sides of the respective wall plates. Furthermore, the spacing distance S3 would be matter of routine design choice as set forth above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12080899. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘899 patent anticipate the instant claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the double patenting rejection was obviated.
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the double patenting rejection was obviated.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 11 recites that the insulation holder comprises at least one rib, the at least one rib located in the vent hole and dividing the vent hole in a plurality of air sub-holes. While both CN ‘867 and ‘827 disclose ribs on the vent plates thereof, these ribs do not divide the vent area into a plurality of air sub-holes as claimed (the ribs do not delineate holes). As such, claim 11 distinguishes over the references.
Claim 15 recites that the main body plate defines a first notch, and the valve holder defines a second notch aligned with the first notch in the thickness direction of the main body plate. Neither CN ‘867 or ‘827 teaches or fairly suggests this subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan Crepeau whose telephone number is (571) 272-1299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher, can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272-1700. Documents may be faxed to the central fax server at (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Jonathan Crepeau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
May 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights